> Wouldn't the quality of the picture drop because you're throwing out > image area? If you are going to shoot 16x9, perhaps high-definition > would be a better idea. Not entirely. If you intend your show to be on HD widescreen TVs, then, yes, shoot high definition. If you want to emulate the studios and major producers, again, high definition is a good idea. However, for those truly entrenched in independent filmmaking, where the target distribution is common letterboxed SDI video (NOT widescreen HD) then the resolution of DV as to width is adequate, and losing the top and bottom pixels to the letterbox only a requirement, not unlike when shooting 16mm Academy Aperture film with a groundglass etched for widescreen. Similarly, many 35mm productions (non-anamorphic) use the full Academy Aperture, which is basically 1.33:1 (or 4x3, just like regular TV) and then the show is masked for 1.85:1 widescreen. Essentially, losing all the picture info, top and bottom, exactly like what would happen in a DV 16x9 cropping scheme. There really isn't a resolution loss, SDI video-wise. Wherein lies the difference: it's all about GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) in that, the more resolution you start with, the better off any home video experience will be. > Might I add to the following, have someone take responsibility for > making sure the clapper is at the beginning or the shot (and even > better at the end too). Just finishing shooting a piece where I did it > all my self, I can tell you that it sure would have made things > smoother had I had someone to remember to do this and do it for me. Just remember, "end sticks" have the clapper board upside down! It's a quick (and the standard) way for an editor to know which end of the shot you're marking. Sometimes, you can roll on a rehearsal, and surprise the talent with the end sticks, having not slated the beginning of the shot. There's many a "best performance" in a rehearsal, and, especially when shooting Mini DV/DVCAM, there's not much excuse NOT to roll. What will it take? $0.82 in high grade tape? > I saw an article in a recent American Cinematographer (the one that > included tributes to "Road to Perdition" cinematographer Conrad Hall) > about the long hours that camera crews often are required to put in. > It brought up a number of concerns and information about this: The > quality of the work goes downhill after 12 hours. (So it may go past > take 3 into 4, 5, 6 and beyond.) > > It becomes a very definite safety issue if there isn't layover time > allowed to recover sleep. In fact it told about how an Assistant > Cameraman on the movie "Pleasantville" lost his life after a 23 hour > shift when he fell asleep at the wheel of his automobile. I don't > think any movie benefits from excessive all-nighters. Agreed... but, now, to elaborate... First, an aside: remember that scene with Scatman Crothers talking about "shining" with little Danny Lloyd in the kitchen of the Overlook Hotel? The master shot on Mr. Crothers went through, as I recall, 140+ takes in more than a week of shooting the one shot. Similarly, the "Give me the bat" sequence as Shelley Duvall backed her way up the staircase from Jack Nicholson was well over 30 takes, something akin to operating a Steadicam up the stairs of the Empire State Building. Creative excess aside, the KEYS in low budget production, are (at least) three fold: 1) When the days are super long, is necessary to have "designated drivers" (just like those present in certain drinking scenarios) who are simply well-rested people with no other responsibility. This allows dozing on the way to the set for the crew member(s). It is absolutely right to say working under the stress of sleep deprivation can lead to real productivity loss, questionable decisions, and possibly poor craftsmanship. Studies have been done on this stuff. For example, it is often far better to get 30 minutes sleep, rather than 2 hours, for many people in the all-nighter situation. But definitely, keep the long days as close to ZERO as possible. The problem always in low budget is "can the budget afford the time?" In the days of "you HAVE to shoot FILM," sets were a LOT more expensive per day. In the advent of DV and HD (make no mistake, HD is not that different from film in production) the economy of shooting Mini DV/DVCAM means more of the budget can go into on-camera and behind the scenes needs, as the $100,000+ film and lab budget is more like $1,000 in DVCAM, albeit if you want to try a tape to film transfer, there's the bulk of a film and lab budget right back in your face. The difference is, you can get to DVD FIRST, and shop a completed film around PRIOR to committing to the transfer. (But if you're serious about theatrical release, better THINK 24P HD, using the Sony Cinealta or the Panasonic flavor (variable speed!) for your production. Using HD, however, basically brings a film-level camera department rental budget back to your below the line figures. 2) NEVER overwork actors. The S.A.G. contract gets it right on this one, even if you're using non-S.A.G. talent. Torturing an actor over a long day(s) affects (wrecks) performances, quite simply. Let actors REST with at LEAST 8-12 hours turnaround, MINIMUM. And try to keep the actors on no more than five consecutive shooting days. The overwork, long hours, and 6-7 day weeks should be reserved for the OTHER side of the camera. 2) a) Another little hint: if your movie has a romance scene(s), like the R-rated (or NC17) variety, in the situation of less experienced actors, SHOOT ALL THOSE SCENES FIRST. At the beginning of the shoot. It's just a matter of practicality. If you have ever been on a set trying to shoot such a scene AFTER the actors grow to despise each other off camera during the shoot - you know the problem mentioned here all too well. 3) Never skimp on catering and craft services. No pizza runs! Preparing from the outset to properly feed a crew returns ENORMOUS benefits in productivity. Oddly, it is often very wise to have a menu including regular and vegetarian entrees, as, you will find, the vegetarian stuff simply looks so enticing EVERYBODY tends to go for it. I only mention this as a carnivorous spectator of the phenomenon. It also allows you and your caterer to fine tune the menu in short order. Of course, catering SEEMS a huge expense in a microbudget, BUT the return in productivity warrants it every time. Planning the shoot around the meal break (about 6 hours in) is simply wise. The craft service is equally as important, and is best when there's a PERSON looking after it, not just a cooler in the shade of a tree. Again... make a crew feel like they're treated with respect, and the benefits flow downhill onto the screen. The second benefit is you can develop a crew that wants to work with you on the next one. Being known for a "well run" set often boils down to staving off hunger the right way. Many a low budget (microbudget) production has kept essentially UNPAID crews together by showing respect and concern at meal times. If the day runs LONG, make sure craft service can whip up soup or something 12 or so hours into the shoot - and after the caterer has gone to bed. It's the little things that provoke memories of "good shoots" rather than horror stories better reserved for the audience! Good Shooting and Posting! Richard Brown